This article did a very poor job of trying to make it's case. It references the fact that FGM, honour killings, and forced marriages are listed in the citizenship guide as being illegal, and says that the fact that the removal of FGM from that list wouldn't matter because it's illegal and "obvious" anyway. So are honour killings and forced marriages, so if it's so "redundant" why just remove FGM?

Next, who says it's obvious? If you come from a country where 99% of women suffer FGM, why would it be obvious that is illegal here? The article says:

The reference to female genital mutilation in the citizenship guide is similarly loaded. Telling potential citizens that cutting off another person’s body parts is illegal and will be punished is … redundant.

So, why is male circumcision legal? It's effects aren't as damaging as those of FGM, but it's still "cutting off another person's body parts" - and it's both legal and widely practiced. So, to those from a culture where it's a virtuous procedure, how is it "obvious" that FGM is any different?

And moreover, the article conflates "being willing to turn a blind eye to" as "being in favour of" to build a straw man about Rempel's position (not that I like her). Rempel is not saying "Canada’s current government is in favour of the forced, ritual removal of a part of a woman’s anatomy", as the article suggests. Rempel is saying they are willing to turn a blind eye in the interest of political expediency. As anyone familiar with social justice ought to know, you don't need to perpetrate a crime to be complicit in it, if you can prevent it but instead turn a blind eye. Rempel may be wrong - seems like she at least jumped the gun on this one - but this article is just a low-rate hit job that can't even string a coherent narrative together for 1000 words.

Most voters already realize the NDP is best going to address Canada's income and wealth inequalities, and as well the climate changes issues for Canada. Singh would do well to focus on job creation, creating decent working class private sector jobs. If Singh doesn't go for the quick fix, gotcha solutions to Canada's coming NAFTA debacle, which could seriously erode Trudeau's popularity, and wisely plays the long game, the NDP could be in for a pleasant surprise on election nite in the 2019 federal election.

Jagmeet Singh picks up Justin Trudeau's playbook in next battle for hearts of Canada's left

Jagmeet Singh is looking to cash in on disenchantment as Justin Trudeau fumbles his lofty pledges

A wooden pathway leads to a scenic lookout on Bell Island in the Bahamas. (CBC)

Dawson's report says the government had found a funding mechanism to allow it to contribute to the Global Centre for Pluralism's endowment fund and Trudeau reaffirmed the government's $15 million commitment during the meeting.

The Aga Khan's pitch for government funding for a $200 million riverfront renewal plan in Ottawa was also discussed.

Dawson ruled that Trudeau should have recused himself from two discussions in May 2016 involving the $15 million grant.

"Two months prior to the May 2016 occasions, Mr. Trudeau's family accepted a gift from the Aga Khan that might reasonably be seen to have been given to influence Mr. Trudeau in the exercise of an official power, duty or function as Prime Minister," she wrote.

Looking out from Bell Island in the Bahamas at night. (CBC)

"For this reason, the discussions with the Privy Council Office and later with the Aga Khan about the outstanding $15 million grant to the endowment fund provided an opportunity to improperly further the private interests of the Global Centre for Pluralism."

While the Aga Khan is not paid to lobby government (one of the criteria under the law) Conacher said he believes the Aga Khan violated the lobbying rules. Otherwise, it would create a giant loophole, he said.

"Every single corporation, business, union, non-profit organization would start using board members to give gifts to politicians if this loophole were opened up by the lobbying commissioner."

Conacher is also calling for outgoing lobbying commissioner Karen Shepherd and incoming lobbying commissioner Nancy Bélanger to recuse themselves from ruling on the investigation because of the way Shepherd's contract was renewed and the way Bélanger was chosen in "a secretive, PMO-controlled process."

Manon Dion, spokeswoman for the lobbying commissioner's office, said she cannot reveal whether they are already looking into the issue.

I continue not to understand why the Aga Khan, multi-billionaire private-island-owning self-proclaimed god-emperor of 25 million people, is universally beloved in the media and among politicians. Someone needs to put Kim Jong-un and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in touch with his PR team.

It's primarily pocket book issues that determine how people vote. How's the economy doing, what's the unemployment rate, can people pay for food, clothing, and shelter. All the other issues although important are usually secondary. The economy seems to be rolling along, but if Trump decides to shed NAFTA , it could be a real game cxhanger. What is the NDP's response to that? Does anybody think the NDP would have got elected in BC or Alberta running against jobs? The BC Liberals have been down on their hands and knees praying that the NDP would cancel Site C so they could accuse them of being the party of 'No Jobs'

Enough already about the "Jobs" thing, North. Everyone else here cares just as much about full employment as you do. It's not as though if you didn't keep banging us over the head with the "j word" that the rest of us would be just fine with working people starving to death or something.

The main reason the NDP does not usually do well in elections is because they lose tract of the big picture, and go off on these secondary tangents that don't win elections. These secondary issues usually won't get addressed as well if the NDP does not win. First things first, and the NDP needs to get elected first. We know the Conservatives will be campaigning front and centre around the economy, so what will be the NDP's approach to the economy and in particular what's the NDP's approach if NAFTA collapses?

The negative publicity towards the NDP from the usual Liberal-fed suspects Mileski/CBC, Toronto Star, etc. will help to make Singh an underdog in the next election, so don't get too concerned about the present polls. Having said that the NDP has gained about 5% in the polls since Singh became Leader according Nanos one of Canada's credible pollsters.

Someone needs to put Kim Jong-un and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in touch with his PR team.

I think part of his secret is that he doesn't actually rule over the material lives of anyone. He's more like the Dalai Lama (also beloved) or the Pope (fairly well liked) than a dictator and a terrorist.